Posted on 03/01/2022 11:02:40 AM PST by Red Badger
Remember that “horse dewormer” that the FDA, CDC, NIH, CNN, and Sanjay Gupta all told you not to use?
A new paper recently published in the Journal of the AMA (JAMA) shows that Ivermectin works way better than the COVID vaccine in keeping you from dying from COVID.
This was an open-label randomized trial done in Malaysia with around 250 patients in each arm. One arm got IVM + standard of care, the other arm got the standard of care.
Of course, JAMA never would have published this if they thought that people would actually look at the data. The abstract says: “The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.” You are supposed to read the abstract and believe that ivermectin has no effect.
In fact, that’s exactly what people do even when you tell them expressly to ignore that:
Do not fall for it. Read the paper if you want the truth. If you want to be misled, just read the abstract.
Pierre Kory did a brilliant takedown of the paper on his substack. I won’t repeat that here. Instead, I’ll just summarize the data for you; the hidden gems in the paper that you are never supposed to notice.
The Data The lower the p-value, the more significant the result is. A Chi-squared test was used. Data came from the JAMA paper appendix.
Interpretation Of The Data So there are five takeaways from the study:
Vaccine efficacy in the real world is quite small. If you got vaccinated, it reduced your chance of death by just 24 percent. However, the study did NOT look at the all-cause mortality of the vaccine (it only enrolled people who survived the vaccine), so the tiny absolute risk reduction you get from a 24 percent relative risk reduction (roughly 24 percent of 0.25 percent = 0.06 percent benefit) is less than the absolute risk of dying from the vaccine (around 0.2 percent). See Incriminating Evidence for details on this. If you were not vaccinated (which you shouldn’t be), ivermectin reduced your chance of death by 72 percent. So it was 3 times more effective than the vaccine. But the risk of ivermectin is negligible so the risk-benefit ratio is extremely favorable. Ivermectin has a 3X effect size (benefit) and is more than 100,000X less risky with respect to death risk, killing nobody (compared to over 200,000 people from the vaccine). So it’s the clear choice. It’s the only rational choice. The vaccine did provide a SMALL incremental benefit if you took both (10 percent lower risk), but it’s a non-starter since the risk-benefit analysis doesn’t support ever using the vaccine. If we want to reduce deaths, ivermectin is the way to go. Avoid the vaccine entirely. There is no way you have a paper like this with 431,000 views and just two comments. This implies that virtually all the comments were counter-narrative and were censored from public view. That in itself is stunning. Note that multidrug protocols that use ivermectin are much better than ivermectin alone. For example, the Fareed Tyson protocol has treated 10,000 people with no deaths, whereas in this study, 1 of the 75 unvaccinated people who got ivermectin died (1.3 percent). Multidrug protocols are clearly the way to go.
Acknowledgment I want to thank Massimaux for highlighting what the study said in his tweet.
Summary It doesn’t get much better than this. A paper published in JAMA showing ivermectin is three times better than the vaccines in preventing death.
Combined with the risk data of the vaccines, it’s clear that if you are given a choice, you’d always choose ivermectin and never choose the vaccine.
Will this paper make a difference? I don’t think so.
Deep State, Big Pharma, and Big Med have blood on their hands.
Ivermectin is a miracle drug except it is too cheap for Big Pharma.
While I agree with your title, and do think that the AMA is compromised, you need to read the article in entirety, which repudiates the title of this article.
The article hot-links to the source report:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
Read through and note this conclusion:
“Conclusions-—In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
Note: DID NOT prevent progression to severe disease
Your article is faulty.
Bkmkzz
BTTT
The Queen herself got Ivermectin just last week. Its all the rage!!
Cancelling JAMA commences in 3,...2,.....
Didn’t TRUMP suggest Ivermectin and that is why it is hated and and not used?
Rand Paul undecided on Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, says hatred of Trump hinders research
I had Covid (2nd time) about 6-7 weeks ago, lost 30 pounds in the process. Went to my doctor, he prescribed IVM and HCQ on a Tuesday.
Although I was still weak, I was back to work the following Monday. I was fully recovered ten days later.
The conclusion was not supported by the actual data in the study. Read the article, it is all explained.
Did Camilla, too?...................................
Good enough for the Queen - but not the commoner?
Ivermectin, on all accounts, is very effective against covid. However, if someone believes they are getting ill from the virus what is the proper dosage of Ivermectin. I’ve seen pills at 3mg. Any websites to reference?
Your comprehension is faulty. There was a significant reduction in death rates for the Ivermectin group.
Try reading more closely or reading Dr. Kory’s analysis:
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-disinformation-campaign-against?utm_source=url
Where does the risk of death being 0.2% come from?
That would be a huge number of deaths.
Read the article instead of the fualty conclusion. The study’s conclusion has been highly critized for not properly represetning the data. Look at the data youself and you will see. The data shows it was very effective. Thier conclusion was based on not being able to have statistical reliability due to sample size. Something they intentionally set up. One might even think they tried to make the study fail.
Was the hypothesis “Ivermectin did work” making the null “Ivermectin didn’t work?” If the p is lower than .05 (or whatever they used), then the null is rejected, thus supporting Ivermectin did work. Did I get that, right?
Hmmm....comparing Ivermectin patients to control:
“Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 patients (1.7%) in the ivermectin group vs 10 (4.0%) in the control group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30; P = .17)”
So small numbers but 4 ivermectin patients needed ventilation versus 10 in the control group.
“and intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.5%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20; P = .79).”
ICU = 6 ivermectin vs 8 control.
“The 28-day in-hospital mortality rate was similar for the ivermectin and control groups (3 [1.2%] vs 10 [4.0%]; RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11; P = .09),”
So 28-day mortality was 3 for ivermectin versus 10 in the control....
“as was the length of hospital stay after enrollment (mean [SD], 7.7 [4.4] days vs 7.3 [4.3] days; mean difference, 0.4; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.3; P = .38).”
In the study, the quoted parts are all one paragraph. These are listed as secondary effects versus measuring the primary goal. Okay...BUT IT LOOKS GOOD FOR IVERMECTIN TO ME!
The biggest problem is the trial involved so few people that the confidence interval essential says “impossible to know”. When I did testing for the military, I’d ask “How many runs will we need for statistical significance?” And the answer was always 10,000+...which was impossible to do in the real world. So we had to accept statistical uncertainty and buy multi-Billion dollar acquisitions based on “more likely than not”.
Looking at this trial, I feel OK about taking horse paste when I had COVID. The tube cost me $6 and I didn’t even use 1/2 of the tube for 3 doses. No diarrhea, no upset tummy. Pretty much NO DOWNSIDE AT ALL. But no statistical certainty, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.